"he_who_is_nobody wrote:Now, I will agree that that reductio ad absurdum was not my best work. I was in a rush (and also why I wrote won as one in that post ). However, I think my point is clear since three other people got it. As Collecemall said, "But one might wonder why the racism sticks out yet the bigotry it was derived from is tolerable to you?" In addition, the reason I used interracial marriage as interchangeable with gay marriage is because both were decided in the courts, thus both overturned state constitutions. That fact seemed to be a reason you were so upset about this, thus I thought it would be a good comparison.

[emphasis added]"

I see the distinction. Let me step this back and bit and try to answer to this less contentiously and see if I understand what you meant. I know you didn't call me a racist and my comments about the comparison between race and sexual orientation were obviously arguing to a point you didn't make. I need to make a few points clarifying some things.

I voted for marriage equality when it was put on the ballot in my state. It took a long time for the political arguments to finally reach me about why it was so important and it wasn't the rhetoric about love winning. I voted for it because I believe that the government has no reason to tell anyone anything about marriage. I do not agree with same-sex marriage in terms of my faith convictions... but I agree far less with allowing the government to represent a faith position by law, even one I agree with. That's a slippery slope to theocracy and who is to say your religion (not saying you have one) or my religion is the one that will win in the end? No one should impose their faith values on someone else by law. That's tyranny to me.

I am pro-choice... not because I believe in abortion... I revile it as murder on a faith conviction. However, I don't want the government having a say in the reproductive rights of citizens. Another slippery slope to theocracy and tyranny. I can't force other people to think like I do, rather, I have to try and make the best ethical arguments I can, the best defense of my position in the public space and hope that other people will see my point of view and agree. If they don't, making them live as I feel they should is monstrous. It creates animosity and resentment and these are counterproductive.

If we compare Loving V Virginia and Obergefell V Hodges your comparison holds in terms of both being decided by the courts. Here is a better elucidation of why I believe this was wrong on both counts. Morally, both decisions were correct from a political standpoint... pragmatically both lead to disaster. This is an opinion and I reserve the right to be proven wrong so let me lay out the best argument I can with respect to all involved...

I looked into this a bit and found some interesting facts about this.

Before Loving V Virginia most states were already having their racism based laws repealed by court action and government involvement. Only the southern states were left as holdouts at the end. If you look at a map of the states which had their laws repealed...

Is the situation significantly better for African American's in those states now then in 1967? Sure, they have legal protections and that is great in the abstract but it means that prejudice didn't go away... it went into hiding. And now the incarceration rates of African Americans are staggering. The prison population has boomed and despite being less than 15% of the population...

"In twelve states, more than half of the prison population is black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Maryland, whose prison population is 72% African American, tops the nation."

Prejudice didn't go away... in fact it may be worse now than it has even been because now its biased judges, and economic targeting through "red lining" which is pretty hard to prove. It is expressed by systematic denial of opportunity through processes that you can't see but that have real and lasting effects. The backlash of forcing something on America that it's racist heart didn't want wasn't equality... it was a far more pernicious and dishonest racism that is in the heart but never spoken out loud. Who brought crack into the black communities in the 80's? Was it the people in the communities themselves or maybe racist law enforcement that wanted to have an easy excuse to incarcerate them? The first Marijuana prohibitions were, in many places, to give an easy method of targeting Latinos and African Americans. African American's and Latinos are incarcerated for drug crime at a rate that is many times higher than their white counterparts today more than ever.

The laws couldn't create morality, laws aren't morals... they are laws. Assassinating MLK was illegal but that man still did it. You can't force someone to abandon prejudice, only reason can do this. This is why democracy and free speech have to go hand in hand. You have to change peoples minds with reason not force them to act in a moral way because when given a choice when no one is looking or when there is no protection they act on their feelings and prejudices...

Most of the states who voted in amendments and legislation banning same sex marriage or defining marriage as only a man and a woman were either overturned by judges, courts, or Obergefell proper in the span of less than seven years.

This graphic is so very telling. Watch the chronology in the graphic as it plays and notice that until about 2001 most states didn't even have really well developed laws forbidding same sex marriage or any laws at all. Something happened between 2001 and 2012 that made voters come out in droves and uniformly vote in amendments and strong laws to rigidly define marriage. It's stunning to watch the progression in the graphic over time. Then, between 2012 and 2015 many states voted to make same sex marriage legal but overwhelmingly it was action by federal judges, federal courts and the Supreme Court that roundly shot these laws down and forced legality of same sex marriage. The voters opinions though stated clearly in many, many states were completely ignored and overruled. This didn't change their minds... it only sent their prejudice into hiding.

Hidden prejudice is far more dangerous than displayed ignorance because at least one you can fight in the open.

The argument I was making when we started talking about this was that this secret prejudice may have been one of the factors that led to Trump. It certainly could have been that Hillary was just so bad that they voted for anyone but her. That is a reasonable conclusion supported by evidence. Or it could have been that American's still are everything Trump is and are simply no longer allowed to express it anywhere but in the voting booth.

"In what is surely a last-minute bid for more support among conservative Christians in Iowa, Donald Trump has suggested that he would seek to overturn last summer’s landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the U.S. Speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Trump attacked the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision, and confirmed he would “strongly consider” appointing new justices who would overturn the ruling, since he believes it should have been a states’-rights issue[.]"

"WALLACE: But — but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?

Loving V Virginia didn't make anyone less racist and Obergefell didn't change anyone's opinion on same sex marriage equality. It just scared the hell out of them. Scared people do strange things. It also made them very, very angry.

"In September 2016, Donald Trump vowed to sign the so-called “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA), if passed by Congress, a bill that aims to prevent the federal government from enforcing marriage equality by taking punitive action against individuals, corporations, or organizations who discriminate against same-sex married couples. Critics say the bill would effectively legalize such discrimination.

Trump was elected President of the United States on 8 November 2016. Neither he nor Pence had significantly modified their stances on same-sex marriage between the primaries and the general election. While the president does not have the Constitutional power to overturn a Supreme Court decision, he does have the ability to appoint justices who would. Based on past statements of both the president- and vice president-elect, it seems likely that this will come to pass should any vacancies in the Supreme Court occur."

I believe America is deeply racist even today. I believe that Americans also didn't want same sex marriage equality as a majority. These court decisions didn't change minds about LGBT issues... they made people feel threatened and backed into a corner and severely deepened already cavernous divisions. The civil war started over similar debates about states rights and the rights of people to vote their conscience... even if they were wrong... you have to change the minds of people before you try and force laws on them or you are just imposing your views... right or wrong... through tyranny. One type of tyranny is not better than another.

I voted for marriage equality when it was put on the ballot in my state. It took a long time for the political arguments to finally reach me about why it was so important and it wasn't the rhetoric about love winning. I voted for it because I believe that the government has no reason to tell anyone anything about marriage. I do not agree with same-sex marriage in terms of my faith convictions... but I agree far less with allowing the government to represent a faith position by law, even one I agree with. That's a slippery slope to theocracy and who is to say your religion (not saying you have one) or my religion is the one that will win in the end? No one should impose their faith values on someone else by law. That's tyranny to me.

I am pro-choice... not because I believe in abortion... I revile it as murder on a faith conviction. However, I don't want the government having a say in the reproductive rights of citizens. Another slippery slope to theocracy and tyranny. I can't force other people to think like I do, rather, I have to try and make the best ethical arguments I can, the best defense of my position in the public space and hope that other people will see my point of view and agree. If they don't, making them live as I feel they should is monstrous. It creates animosity and resentment and these are counterproductive.

This is, what I would call, doing religion right.

Far too many religious adherents fail to appreciate that their religious convictions apply only to themselves, and do not apply to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs.

I don't necessarily agree with your reasons for those positions, but I do very much value the fact that you wouldn't use your religion to limit other peoples' freedoms.

I believe America is deeply racist even today. I believe that Americans also didn't want same sex marriage equality as a majority. These court decisions didn't change minds about LGBT issues... they made people feel threatened and backed into a corner and severely deepened already cavernous divisions. The civil war started over similar debates about states rights and the rights of people to vote their conscience... even if they were wrong... you have to change the minds of people before you try and force laws on them or you are just imposing your views... right or wrong... through tyranny. One type of tyranny is not better than another.

Mmm... and slavery.

See, there's the problem - you had states which wanted to maintain a subset of the humans living in the nation as sub-human, treat them as material possessions. That's real tyranny.

I think a federal government must-needs have the ability to protect the people in its nation and to oblige the states to conform to that, otherwise there is no nation.

I believe America is deeply racist even today. I believe that Americans also didn't want same sex marriage equality as a majority. These court decisions didn't change minds about LGBT issues... they made people feel threatened and backed into a corner and severely deepened already cavernous divisions. The civil war started over similar debates about states rights and the rights of people to vote their conscience... even if they were wrong... you have to change the minds of people before you try and force laws on them or you are just imposing your views... right or wrong... through tyranny. One type of tyranny is not better than another.

Mmm... and slavery.

See, there's the problem - you had states which wanted to maintain a subset of the humans living in the nation as sub-human, treat them as material possessions. That's real tyranny.

I think a federal government must-needs have the ability to protect the people in its nation and to oblige the states to conform to that, otherwise there is no nation.

You are correct but this is so complex. They didn't even give them the honor of being subhuman... they were chattel property like a table. In fact, in the declaration of secession for Mississippi they said this...

"It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England."https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary- ... ing-states

That's four billion in 1860's dollars. The property mentioned here was men. People. That's what men, African American men, meant to them then... like end tables, or tractors. It was the most disgusting, pernicious, indefensible estimation of the value of a man in dollars. The Union came and burned those people out. They cut a swath of destruction through Georgia that people still talk about. It was Biblical in scale. Yet, Lincoln still said...

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

"http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm"

Was it really about human rights or was it about political expediency? The change was slow in coming. In researching the laws of the old South I have learned that many laws repealed in the reconstruction period after the civil war were simply reinstated when no one was looking later. Violence and coercion didn't change their minds. They still remained as prejudiced after the war as they were before it. Worse, because they still didn't feel they were wrong, they just felt subjugated and humiliated. They acted just the same but the prejudice was hidden, under the radar. Just look at "convict leasing" and what the 13th amendment actually says.

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Slavery is STILL LEGAL in the US! It's Constitutional!

Education is really the key. Ignorance is the enemy. It always comes back to education, to teaching people about things they never thought about and the unfortunate truth is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink... like you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think.

MatthewLee wrote:Was it really about human rights or was it about political expediency?

A bit of both, but there was undoubtedly a human rights element to it.

MatthewLee wrote: The change was slow in coming. In researching the laws of the old South I have learned that many laws repealed in the reconstruction period after the civil war were simply reinstated when no one was looking later. Violence and coercion didn't change their minds. They still remained as prejudiced after the war as they were before it. Worse, because they still didn't feel they were wrong, they just felt subjugated and humiliated. They acted just the same but the prejudice was hidden, under the radar.

All true, but all part of the issue here. So people felt that the government had overstepped its boundaries and imposed unfair things onto them, like making them lose ownership of their human chattel... for me, what that really means is that they are stupid, selfish, close-minded asshats not that they're being repressed, and it exposes one of the many problems with democracy, namely in this case that a selfish asshole's vote counts just as much as a good person's.

MatthewLee wrote:And now the incarceration rates of African Americans are staggering. The prison population has boomed and despite being less than 15% of the population...

Just wanted to quickly address this, who's to blame that this is the case?

Because unless someone is prepared to argue that large numbers of blacks are being framed for crimes they didn't commit, which would be on the conspiratorial level of Bush did 9/11, I don't see how this proves "deep" racism.

Everyone is responsible for their actions and only their actions and everyone gets their day in court. Don't want to go to prison, all I can say is either don't commit crimes or learn not to get caught. Preferably don't commit crimes. Good advice for everyone no matter the race.

"In twelve states, more than half of the prison population is black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Maryland, whose prison population is 72% African American, tops the nation."

Why is high black incarceration rates used as evidence of racism against blacks?

Do you know that a disproportionate number of their victims are other blacks? So I could just as easily argue that the justice system disproportionately brings justice to black victims of crime every time a black criminal is sent to prison and therefore has "black privilege" (that's collectivist style of reasoning, not mine).

In 2013, 2245 blacks were killed by blacks. Only 409 whites were killed by blacks. It's pretty clear that the disproportionate beneficiary of black murderers being incarcerated is the black population as a whole.

Slavery is STILL LEGAL in the US! It's Constitutional!

Yes, it is, but it's nothing comparable to what it was.

Prison inmates don't have the same rights as innocent people because they're not as responsible as innocent people.

I don't see any moral comparison at all between kidnapping people forcing them to work and giving inmates tasks to complete like having to contribute to the maintenance of the prison they are housed in, doing things like cleaning, cooking or what have you. Who else is going to do that? The guards? LOL It ain't a hotel. They already have a debt to pay to society and sitting around all day staring at the wall doesn't cut it.

It's a good thing that exception was added to the constitution, that way lazy inmates can't claim they're being abused just because they're put to work. I'm not saying no abuse occurs in prison, but having to clean your own toilets isn't one of them.

I voted for marriage equality when it was put on the ballot in my state. It took a long time for the political arguments to finally reach me about why it was so important and it wasn't the rhetoric about love winning. I voted for it because I believe that the government has no reason to tell anyone anything about marriage. I do not agree with same-sex marriage in terms of my faith convictions... but I agree far less with allowing the government to represent a faith position by law, even one I agree with. That's a slippery slope to theocracy and who is to say your religion (not saying you have one) or my religion is the one that will win in the end? No one should impose their faith values on someone else by law. That's tyranny to me.

If that's the case wouldn't it make more sense to support a position where the government goes out of the marriage business entirely?

This measure hasn't reduced the government's role in marriage, it's only expanded it.

I am pro-choice... not because I believe in abortion... I revile it as murder on a faith conviction. However, I don't want the government having a say in the reproductive rights of citizens. Another slippery slope to theocracy and tyranny. I can't force other people to think like I do, rather, I have to try and make the best ethical arguments I can, the best defense of my position in the public space and hope that other people will see my point of view and agree. If they don't, making them live as I feel they should is monstrous. It creates animosity and resentment and these are counterproductive.

That is something I don't understand and I'm not even religious.

Murder is not tolerable even to a very small government because a small government is still supposed to safeguard the natural rights of people and people still need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. It can't be excused on any grounds except extreme duress and unless the pregnancy puts your life in danger, that case doesn't fly.

So I have to ask, when you say abortion is murder are you serious about it and can you prove it objectively?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not purely pro-choice or purely pro-life, I just think if a fetus is developed enough to feel pain, you're dealing with actual human life. Speaking from a purely secular point of view, we tend to count something as human life if there's sufficient brain activity. No human life should be killed unprovoked.

Murder is not tolerable even to a very small government because a small government is still supposed to safeguard the natural rights of people and people still need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. It can't be excused on any grounds except extreme duress and unless the pregnancy puts your life in danger, that case doesn't fly.

So I have to ask, when you say abortion is murder are you serious about it and can you prove it objectively?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not purely pro-choice or purely pro-life, I just think if a fetus is developed enough to feel pain, you're dealing with actual human life. Speaking from a purely secular point of view, we tend to count something as human life if there's sufficient brain activity. No human life should be killed unprovoked.

Murder is not tolerable even to a very small government because a small government is still supposed to safeguard the natural rights of people and people still need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. It can't be excused on any grounds except extreme duress and unless the pregnancy puts your life in danger, that case doesn't fly.

So I have to ask, when you say abortion is murder are you serious about it and can you prove it objectively?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not purely pro-choice or purely pro-life, I just think if a fetus is developed enough to feel pain, you're dealing with actual human life. Speaking from a purely secular point of view, we tend to count something as human life if there's sufficient brain activity. No human life should be killed unprovoked.

Secular, not religious, Texan Baptist... you know, one of those.

I have no idea what you're trying to imply.

If we can agree that a fetus is a sentient human being, which it is after about roughly 3 months, it can feel pain, there's enough brain activity to experience some of the world, then there are very few circumstances that would justify ending it.

Tree wrote:You're a joke and a pseudo-intellectual, Sparhajoke. It's pretty clear you either never passed junior high level biology...

You're retarded either way.

Throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.

I would think that someone who's "really smart" would be able to tell that if you remove certain parts of an automobile or just screw it up straight out of the assembly line, it wouldn't be justified to call it a different type of vehicle. It would just be a defective automobile.

No, I'm not convinced that someone who thinks a genetic defect warrants the classification of a third sex is "really smart".

You can't even seem to tell the difference between what an organism can do (such as how humans breed) and what technology can do. You have said some really really dumb things including saying I was wrong on all counts, including when I said humans can't reproduce by splitting in two (like say certain microorganisms can). That is literally impossible, even with technology.

Or when I said that humans can't reproduce in a threesome to the extent the baby will have 3 biological parents. That is also true. Just like it's true that humans can't cure their own cancers, i.e. their bodies can't cure their own cancers, I'm not saying it can't be done at all without the right technology (such as surgery or chemo). If you're going to conflate these things so easily you're not "really smart".

On this issue, sir, you're dumb. Maybe you're just blinded by your leftist indoctrination to the point where you think you can't be tolerant of trans people or people with birth defects unless you feed into every single one of their delusions and pretend they're perfectly normal as everyone else, but that's not an excuse in the long run.

MatthewLee wrote:I voted for marriage equality when it was put on the ballot in my state. It took a long time for the political arguments to finally reach me about why it was so important and it wasn't the rhetoric about love winning. I voted for it because I believe that the government has no reason to tell anyone anything about marriage. I do not agree with same-sex marriage in terms of my faith convictions... but I agree far less with allowing the government to represent a faith position by law, even one I agree with. That's a slippery slope to theocracy and who is to say your religion (not saying you have one) or my religion is the one that will win in the end? No one should impose their faith values on someone else by law. That's tyranny to me.

I am glad you see the issue this way as well. This issue is one that I cannot understand why there is partisanship on it. Liberals like it because it is treating everyone equally and Conservatives should like it (as you do) because it limits the government. In all honesty, I have never understood why the Right has opposed gay marriage when limiting the government's interference with individuals is supposed to be one of their core values.

MatthewLee wrote:I am pro-choice... not because I believe in abortion... I revile it as murder on a faith conviction. However, I don't want the government having a say in the reproductive rights of citizens. Another slippery slope to theocracy and tyranny. I can't force other people to think like I do, rather, I have to try and make the best ethical arguments I can, the best defense of my position in the public space and hope that other people will see my point of view and agree. If they don't, making them live as I feel they should is monstrous. It creates animosity and resentment and these are counterproductive.

Again, another issue I am not sure why Conservatives oppose it for exactly the reason you lay out above. This issue should not be partisan, for exactly the same reasons I talked about above for marriage equality. This issue, however, is one that Conservatives can even lose their jobs over (so much for the Liberals costing people their jobs narrative). My parents (both theist) honestly hold this same position on this issue.

MatthewLee wrote:If we compare Loving V Virginia and Obergefell V Hodges your comparison holds in terms of both being decided by the courts. Here is a better elucidation of why I believe this was wrong on both counts. Morally, both decisions were correct from a political standpoint... pragmatically both lead to disaster. This is an opinion and I reserve the right to be proven wrong so let me lay out the best argument I can with respect to all involved...

Morally good, but pragmatically bad. I wonder how that can be since you already agree that government should be restrained from meddling in our lives.

MatthewLee wrote:Before Loving V Virginia most states were already having their racism based laws repealed by court action and government involvement. Only the southern states were left as holdouts at the end. If you look at a map of the states which had their laws repealed...

If that is the trend that it was going, is it not a good thing that something came along and made it that way across the country? That way people in the remaining states did not have to live under the tyranny of the state telling them what they can do.

MatthewLee wrote:Is the situation significantly better for African American's in those states now then in 1967?

Yes. Getting rid of institutional racism is always a positive.

MatthewLee wrote:Sure, they have legal protections and that is great in the abstract but it means that prejudice didn't go away... it went into hiding. And now the incarceration rates of African Americans are staggering. The prison population has boomed and despite being less than 15% of the population...

It is not the governments job to get rid of prejudice, but it is governments job to treat everyone equally. Beyond that, I am failing to see the link between interracial marriage being legal across the country and incarceration rates for blacks. Want to string this red herring into something logical?

MatthewLee wrote:Prejudice didn't go away... in fact it may be worse now than it has even been because now its biased judges, and economic targeting through "red lining" which is pretty hard to prove. It is expressed by systematic denial of opportunity through processes that you can't see but that have real and lasting effects. The backlash of forcing something on America that it's racist heart didn't want wasn't equality... it was a far more pernicious and dishonest racism that is in the heart but never spoken out loud. Who brought crack into the black communities in the 80's? Was it the people in the communities themselves or maybe racist law enforcement that wanted to have an easy excuse to incarcerate them? The first Marijuana prohibitions were, in many places, to give an easy method of targeting Latinos and African Americans. African American's and Latinos are incarcerated for drug crime at a rate that is many times higher than their white counterparts today more than ever.

I do not disagree with much of what you are saying here, but again, I am failing to see the point of this. As I said, the government cannot eliminate prejudice, it can only treat everyone equal under the law. However, the fact that you as a white person (correct me if I am wrong) realize that there is this problem is what will correct prejudice in the long run.

MatthewLee wrote:The laws couldn't create morality, laws aren't morals... they are laws. Assassinating MLK was illegal but that man still did it. You can't force someone to abandon prejudice, only reason can do this. This is why democracy and free speech have to go hand in hand. You have to change peoples minds with reason not force them to act in a moral way because when given a choice when no one is looking or when there is no protection they act on their feelings and prejudices...

Again, government can only treat people equally. I feel you are arguing something different here. Something that I mostly agree with.

MatthewLee wrote:Most of the states who voted in amendments and legislation banning same sex marriage or defining marriage as only a man and a woman were either overturned by judges, courts, or Obergefell proper in the span of less than seven years.

Again, proving my point that government can only treat people equally under the law.

MatthewLee wrote:This graphic is so very telling. Watch the chronology in the graphic as it plays and notice that until about 2001 most states didn't even have really well developed laws forbidding same sex marriage or any laws at all. Something happened between 2001 and 2012 that made voters come out in droves and uniformly vote in amendments and strong laws to rigidly define marriage. It's stunning to watch the progression in the graphic over time.

That something being the Religious Right. Beyond that, we already agreed that the government should not be allowed to meddle with the rights of individuals. Thus, even if this was popular and voted for, it violates the Bill of Rights.

MatthewLee wrote:Then, between 2012 and 2015 many states voted to make same sex marriage legal but overwhelmingly it was action by federal judges, federal courts and the Supreme Court that roundly shot these laws down and forced legality of same sex marriage. The voters opinions though stated clearly in many, many states were completely ignored and overruled. This didn't change their minds... it only sent their prejudice into hiding.

Again, it is not the government's job to change minds, only to treat everyone equally. Beyond that, of course the Courts held up treating everyone equally, their job is to follow the laws of the land and a core one is to treat everyone equally under the law.

MatthewLee wrote:Hidden prejudice is far more dangerous than displayed ignorance because at least one you can fight in the open.

We can fight both in the open, because in the open is when it is affecting others. Someone can be at their house talking about how they want to burn faggots, string up niggers and shoot spics, but if they never act on it, they are free to live that way. However, the government cannot create laws restricting the voting rights of blacks or disallowing gays to live near schools. It honestly appears like you are advocating for thought policing.

MatthewLee wrote:The argument I was making when we started talking about this was that this secret prejudice may have been one of the factors that led to Trump. It certainly could have been that Hillary was just so bad that they voted for anyone but her. That is a reasonable conclusion supported by evidence. Or it could have been that American's still are everything Trump is and are simply no longer allowed to express it anywhere but in the voting booth.

I addressed that earlier by pointing to voter apathy being at the heart of it. Remember that only 63 million people voted for the Donald. Even if half of them were bigots, that is only 31.5 million people, which is a tiny amount of the population of the US. Do not get me wrong, there are bigots out there, and I would argue that most of them are in the 30% that still support the Donald, but that is in fact still a tiny bit of the actual population. Not enough to swing a nation wide election by itself.

Anyways, president Oprah will fix everything in three years.

MatthewLee wrote:

"In what is surely a last-minute bid for more support among conservative Christians in Iowa, Donald Trump has suggested that he would seek to overturn last summer’s landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the U.S. Speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Trump attacked the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision, and confirmed he would “strongly consider” appointing new justices who would overturn the ruling, since he believes it should have been a states’-rights issue[.]"

"WALLACE: But — but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?

That is just the Donald talking out of both sides of his mouth. During his campaign, he would say anything to get votes. That is why you have him stating he would be the friendliest administration to the LGBT community while also stating the above.

Honestly, the man is a liar. Why anyone would take him at his word is beyond me.

MatthewLee wrote:Loving V Virginia didn't make anyone less racist and Obergefell didn't change anyone's opinion on same sex marriage equality. It just scared the hell out of them. Scared people do strange things. It also made them very, very angry.

Again, it was not supposed to change anyone's mind, it was just making it so the government treated everyone equally under the law.

MatthewLee wrote:

"In September 2016, Donald Trump vowed to sign the so-called “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA), if passed by Congress, a bill that aims to prevent the federal government from enforcing marriage equality by taking punitive action against individuals, corporations, or organizations who discriminate against same-sex married couples. Critics say the bill would effectively legalize such discrimination.

Trump was elected President of the United States on 8 November 2016. Neither he nor Pence had significantly modified their stances on same-sex marriage between the primaries and the general election. While the president does not have the Constitutional power to overturn a Supreme Court decision, he does have the ability to appoint justices who would. Based on past statements of both the president- and vice president-elect, it seems likely that this will come to pass should any vacancies in the Supreme Court occur."

The Donald cannot get a Republican controlled Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, something the Republicans have been fantasising and campaigning about since the moment Obama signed it. I highly doubt he could get Congress to go for this "First Amendment Defense Act", seeing as how he seems to already be a lame duck.

MatthewLee wrote:I believe America is deeply racist even today.

Some parts, yes. However, the majority, no. Not even if you counted every single person that voted for the Donald. That would only get you to >1/3 of registered voters. That is not even close to a majority.

MatthewLee wrote:I believe that Americans also didn't want same sex marriage equality as a majority.

MatthewLee wrote:These court decisions didn't change minds about LGBT issues... they made people feel threatened and backed into a corner and severely deepened already cavernous divisions.

Again, they never were supposed to change minds, just treat everyone equal under the law.

MatthewLee wrote:The civil war started over similar debates about states rights and the rights of people to vote their conscience... even if they were wrong... you have to change the minds of people before you try and force laws on them or you are just imposing your views... right or wrong... through tyranny. One type of tyranny is not better than another.

Let us not sugar coat it, the South wanted the right to own other people. Again, just because something is popular and you can get a lot of people to vote for it, does not make it okay. I honestly do not care if the minds of the southerners were changed or not, slavery is disgusting and a black mark on the history of my Country. For a country to have a founding document that states "all men are created equal" to have slavery for any stretch of time is shameful. Beyond that, I am not sure one can actually call freeing slaves as an act of tyranny.

However, this does bring up a perplexing issue. Earlier you said Loving and Obergefell were morally good, but pragmatically bad. Are you now saying the same for slavery? It seems that way, or why else bring it up?

To sum up: you started off by agreeing that the court cases were morally good, but claiming they were pragmatically bad. To me, it appears your pragmatic examples were completely irrelevant. The government should treat everyone equally under the law and any bigotry seen should be address by we the people as it is happening. Addressing bigotry was never what those court cases were about.

Tree wrote:Everyone is responsible for their actions and only their actions and everyone gets their day in court. Don't want to go to prison, all I can say is either don't commit crimes or learn not to get caught. Preferably don't commit crimes. Good advice for everyone no matter the race.

That's a list of exactly 353 exonorees based on DNA. (And that was in 1989 which means things have gotten better now due to this.)

In 1989 when this took place the US population was roughly 250 million.

My advice stands. Don't want to do time, don't do the crime. An almost 1 in a million chance to get wrongfully convicted is not a systemic problem. Nothing is ever perfect. By contrast you have a far higher chance to be the victim of medical malpractice or getting a serious hospital infection (and that's only going to get worse with antibiotic resistance), but it's still preferable to get treated than sit home and die.

Please explain what your proposed solution is to high black incarceration rates? Because right now the only way to ensure the percentage of blacks in prisons matches the percentage of blacks in the entire country would be to literally let many guilty people walk or not serve their full sentence which is MADNESS.

Speaking of which, there's a much higher male incarceration rate then female. MUCH higher. Is that sexist? No, it's just that males have higher crime rates than females.

Expanded it how?

Because it expanded the legal definition of marriage to include more possible combinations of people than before.

Keep in mind that married people are treated differently than single people under the law, taxing is different, they may get certain benefits and so forth. In many ways, it's a form of subsidy. I'm not exactly sure what gay relationships provide that is so vital for society that we need to actively support them. Care to explain it? I'm perfectly fine with just leaving them alone, I don't wanna pay for them.

How about friendship registration (totally non-romantic, non-sexual purposes)? Would you be okay with that? Why? Why does the rest of society care if you're friends with Bob or not?

So basically if you're a dude fucking another dude who happens to be a veteran, you should literally have privilege in a true sense for government jobs. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Shouldn't the best person get the job?

Would you be okay with:

"Preferential hiring for FRIENDS of veterans in government jobs"

"For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including: Social Security pension"

This doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about. Social security benefits are given to people who have worked and paid into the system and now get something out of it when they can no longer work.

So let's say there's this old dude who married a younger dude who's never worked a day in his life or maybe worked far less or on a much lower salary, why should the government basically become a substitute sugar daddy upon his death?

Do you think it's a good use of taxes to pay for people's boyfriends or girlfriends?

The reason we gave all these benefits to male and female couples (and there's actually a good reason to reconsider all that because many couples don't take their marriage vows seriously these days, they cheat, they don't stay together for life etc and are little more than long-term boyfriend/girlfriend for the most part) is because they formed families and produced the next generation of people. So as a collective we had a vested interest to see families succeed. Same sex couples however cannot do that. At all.

And as I've said, I'm happy to reconsider the benefits that straight couples get as well. I'm not a big government guy but if you want benefits you should at least produce something in return for society.

That is just the Donald talking out of both sides of his mouth. During his campaign, he would say anything to get votes. That is why you have him stating he would be the friendliest administration to the LGBT community while also stating the above.

Honestly, the man is a liar. Why anyone would take him at his word is beyond me.

You'd be wrong in assuming everyone in the LGBT community actually supports same-sex marriage. It is more likely but not universal. In practice, very few gays actually get married as seen by the low numbers (18k couples during the first year, dropping to 6-7k in later years) when the civil partnerships indistinguishable from marriage were added in the UK. Not that many people rushed to benefit from it. So it's not even inconceivable that they may have other issues they care about which the left has failed to deliver on.

Now if I was gay, I'd be far more concerned about Democrat pandering to Islam, an ideology violently opposed to gays, than Republican opposition to gay marriage.

Conservative gays like Milo Yiannopoulos understand that redefining marriage in such a fundamental way can have unexpected consequences.

Tree wrote:If we can agree that a fetus is a sentient human being, which it is after about roughly 3 months, it can feel pain, there's enough brain activity to experience some of the world, then there are very few circumstances that would justify ending it.

And all of those circumstances would revolve around the person in whose body it sits.

Tree wrote:Do you believe abortion should be legal at any point before birth?

No. I think first trimester abortions are fine - little moral difference between having a hair cut and having an abortion. I think second trimester abortions are dubious, and really should be about the health and safety of the mother, or perhaps because of an extreme disability detected in the future infant. I think third trimester abortions are not greatly different from killing a child which has already been born.

Tree wrote:I would think that someone who's "really smart" would be able to tell that if you remove certain parts of an automobile or just screw it up straight out of the assembly line, it wouldn't be justified to call it a different type of vehicle. It would just be a defective automobile.

No, I'm not convinced that someone who thinks a genetic defect warrants the classification of a third sex is "really smart".

Well, the problem is that a guy who's trying to compare genetics to automobile parts is the one also trying to judge my intelligence.

Given the fact that you obviously don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, because as usual when it comes to a complex topic, you avoid any detail relevant to the subject matter and contrive farcical ignorant analogies instead so you that you can pretend you''re doing something useful, I don't really think you're going to be the judge here.

You are not just wrong, but you are also willfully wrong. I have already cited examples in this thread where anatomical development doesn't happen per the norm and yet is not genetic. Ergo, you either weren't paying attention (it whizzed over your head) or you ignore anything inconvenient to your ideological make-believe just like a Creationist.

Tree wrote:You can't even seem to tell the difference between what an organism can do (such as how humans breed) and what technology can do.

Either that, or your argument is farcical because you're way out of your depth.

You know: either, or.

Tree wrote: You have said some really really dumb things including saying I was wrong on all counts, including when I said humans can't reproduce by splitting in two (like say certain microorganisms can). That is literally impossible, even with technology.

Of course, in reality, I said nothing of the sort and you're just lying again.

Tree wrote:Or when I said that humans can't reproduce in a threesome to the extent the baby will have 3 biological parents. That is also true.

You said it while comparing me to a Creationist, to which I replied with scientific articles showing your error, and you have wholly ignored scientific fact to continue espousing the same erroneous ideological bullshit.

Tree wrote:Just like it's true that humans can't cure their own cancers, i.e. their bodies can't cure their own cancers,...

Again, the problem here Tree is that you think you're the fulcrum of the universe, and consequently if you don't know something, it doesn't exist. You're too arrogant to learn, and too up your own arse to know your limitations.

Tree wrote: I'm not saying it can't be done at all without the right technology (such as surgery or chemo). If you're going to conflate these things so easily you're not "really smart".

And you clearly don't know what you're talking about because technology can't make magic happen - it can only adapt to our needs that which already exists. Stem cells can be used as the genetic material for reproduction.

Of course, it's another layer of irrelevance anyway, because you're ignorantly conflating reproduction with gender.

Tree wrote:On this issue, sir, you're dumb.

No, I am manifestly not, whereas you are repeatedly making confident assertions that contradict reality, so even if I was dumb, I'm still vastly outclassing you.

Tree wrote: Maybe you're just blinded by your leftist indoctrination to the point where you think you can't be tolerant of trans people or people with birth defects unless you feed into every single one of their delusions and pretend they're perfectly normal as everyone else, but that's not an excuse in the long run.

Maybe you're just a rabid fascist who sees ideology in everyone else because you're wholly motivated by ideology, and that's why you deny scientific fact in favour of your fantasy beliefs? You know, like Creationists who think science is a religion.